feedlot performance, net energy and carcass merit …
TRANSCRIPT
FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE, NET ENERGY AND
CARCASS MERIT AS AFFECTED BY HIGH
MOISTURE VS. DRY METHODS
OF PROCESSING MILO
By
Dennis Ralph White
Bachelor of Science
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma
1964
Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the
Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE August, 1969
[J~r-:.\;'::) !<?b1
l'"s
JJ) S' Z.3, ·+-
··. ··<:1• .. ,,
j
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSllY I..IBRARY
NOV 5 1969
~ .... ;..\~ ·r. ,.\.--":• _..f, ~••}., , , ·; , w·,,. •• ·~· ~-. ,;,-.r
FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE 0 NET ENERGY AND
CARCASS MERIT AS AFFECTED BY HIGH
MOISTURE VS. DRY METHODS
OF PROCESSING MILO
Thesis Approveds
730172
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author expresses his sincere appreciation to
Dr. Robert Totusek, Professor of Animal Science, for his
counsel and guidance during the course of this study and in
the preparation of this thesiso
Acknowledgement is due Dro lo To Omtvedt 9 Associate
Professor of Animal Science and Dr. Donald Go Wagner, Assis
tant Professor of Animal Science, for their assistance in
the preparation of this thesis and to John Collier for his
assistance in analysis of datao
Appreciation is extended to Vincent Neuhaus, Jim Newsom,
and Bill Schneider 0 Graduate Assistants in Animal Science;
Dwight Stephens 0 Superintendent 9 Robert Renbarger, Assistant
Superintendent 0 and other personnel at the Fort Reno Experi=
ment Station, in cooperation with the United States Depart~
ment of Agriculture 0 Agricultural Research Service 0 Animal
Husbandry Research Division~ and to student workers at
Oklahoma State University for their assistance in conducting
this studya
The author is also grateful to fellow graduate students
at Oklahoma State University for their help and suggestions.
Acknowledgement is extended to Farmland Industries for
financial support of the research reported hereino
iii
Special acknowledgement is given to the author's wife,
Norma, for her encouragement and assistance throughout the
course of this study and for typing the manuscript,
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION • • • 0 • • • • • • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • l
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE • • • • • • 0 • • • 0 • • 2
Methods of Processing 0 • • • • 0 0 • • • 0 2 Grinding .. • • • •· • • • • 0 0 • • • • 3 Dry Rolling. • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 4 Pelleting. • 0 0 0 • • • • • 0 0 0 0 • 6 Steam Flaking, • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 High Moisture Processing • 0 • 0 0 • • 12
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 0 0 • • • • • 0 • 0 • • • 16
General • • • • • 0 • 0 • • • • • • • ·• 0 0 16 Allotment. • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • 0 16 Feeding. • • • 0 • • .. • 0 • • • 0 • 0 17 Grain Processing Methods • • • 0 • 0 • 17 Data Obtained. • 0 0 • • 0 • • • • • 0 17 Net Energy Determination 0 • .. • • D 0 19
Trial I • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19 Allotment. 0 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • • • 19 Feeding. 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •I I ,) . 0 0 0 21 Processing 0 .. 0 0 0 • 0 0 • • • • 0 0 23 Data Obtained. • 0 0 •· • • • • • 0 0 0 24 Net Energy Determination 0 0 • • • 0 • 25
Trial II. 0 0 • 0 0 0 • • • • • 0 • • 0 • 0 27 Allo.tment. 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • • • • • • 27 Feeding. • • • "· 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • • • 29 Processing. 0 • 0 • • " 0 • • • • 0 • 31 Data Obtained. • 0 0 0 • • • • • 0 • • 32 Net Energy Determination • • 0 • • 0 • 32
Trial III 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 " • • 0 • • • • • • 35 Allotment. • • • • 0 • • 0 • • • • • 0 35 Feeding. • • • • 0 • • 0 0 • • • • • • 36 Processing • 0 • • • • 0 • • • • • • • 38 Data Obtained. 0 • • • • • 0 • • • 0 • 39 Net Energy Determination • 0 • 0 • • • 40
IV. RESULTS. 0 • • 0 • • • • 0 • • • • • • 0 • • 0 • 42
Trial I 0 • • • • • 0 0 • • • 0 • • • 0 • 0 42 Feedlot Performance. 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 42 Net Energy 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • • • • • 42
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
Carcass Merit. • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 • • .. 44 Trial II. • 0 0 • • • • • 0 • .. 0 .. .. .. 0 • 44
Feedlot Performance, • 0 • 0 • • 0 • Q 44 Net Energy • • • • • • • • .. • 0 • • II 48 Carcass Merit. • • • .. Ill • 0 • 0 • " • 50
Trial Ill • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 50 Feedlot Performance. • 0 0 • • 0 .. • • 50 Net Energy • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • 53 Carcass Merit. • 0 • 0 0 0 0 • " • • • 53
v." DISCUSSION • • • 0 0 0 • • • • 0 • • 0 .. • 0 • 0 56
VI. SUMMARY. • • • 0 0 0 a • • • • 0 0 0 • • 0 0 0 0 63
LITERATURE CITED,. 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 • • 0 • 0 66
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
lo Milos Fine vs. Coarse Grinding. o •• • 0 • 0 3
11. Comparisons of Rolled Milo ••••••• o • o • 5
111. Digestibility of Dry Rolled vs. Finely Ground Mi lo. • • • • • • • o • • • • • • • • .. • o • 6
IV. Comparisons of Pelleted Grains •• o o o o o o o 7
Steam Flaked vs. Ground Grains. • 0 0 0 0 • " 0
9
VI. Steam Flaked vs. Dry Rolled Grains.. • • • • • • 11
VII. Effect of Flatness of Flake of Steam Processed Milo on Dry Matter Disappearance From Nylon Bags,%. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 12
VIII. Comparison of High Moisture Grain Processing Methods • • • • • o • , • • • • • • • • • • • 13
IX. Trial la Experimental Design Showing Number of Animals per Treatment •••••• o • • • • • 20
Xo Trial Ia Ration Composition. " . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
XI. Trial Is Percent Proximate Analyses of Feeds on Dry Matter Basis ••••••••••• o • 22
XII. Trial ls Analyses of Variance. • • • • • • • • 24
XIII. Trial ls Particle Size and Density of Processed Milo ••••••••••• , • • • •
XIVo Trial Ila Experimental Design Showing Number
26
of Animals per Treatm.ento o •••••• o • o 28
xv. Trial Ile Ration Composition. 0 0 • • • 0 0 • 29
XVI. Trial Ils Percent Proximate Analyses of Feeds on Dry Matter Basis. • • • • • • • • • • • • 30
XVII. Trial lls Analyses of Variance. e O O O 0 0 0 33
vii
Table
XVIII a
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Trial IIs Particle Size and Density of Processed Milo o o o o o o o o •
Page
• • e O O 34
XIXo Trial Illa Experimental Design Showing Number of Animals per Treatmento o o o o • o • • • • 35
xx .. Trial Ills Ration Composition •• o o o o • D O 36
XXI. Trial Illa Percent Proximate Analyses of Feeds
XXIlo
XXIII.
XXIVo
XXVc
XXVI.
XXVIIo
XXVIII o
XXIX.
xxx 0
XXXI.
XXXIIo
on Dry Matter Basis •••• o • o ~ • , o • • 37
Trial Ills Analyses of Variance, o & 0 0 0 0 I
Trial Illa Particle Size and Density of Processed Miloo o •• o •• o • o o o o 0 0 O
Trial la Feedlot Performance (189 Days). • 0 •
Trial Is Net Energy Values of Processed Milo •
Trial Is Carcass Merit • • 0 0 0 .. • 0 • • 0 0
Trial Ila Feedlot Performance. 0 0 0 0 • • • • Triai· I Is Net Energy Values of Processed Miloo
Trial Ila Carcass Merit. 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0
Trial III a Feedlot Performance (112 Days). 0 0
Trial Illa Net Energy Values of Processed Milo,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 • • • • • • 0 0
Trial Illa Carcass Merit • • 0 0 II • • • • 0 0
viii
39
41
43
45
46
47
49
51
52
54
55
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Sorghum grain is the primary source of cereal grain
for fattening cattle in the Southwesto With the continued
influx of large feedlots into this area 0 the importance of
sorghum grain will be even more pronouncedo
Currently considerable emphasis is being placed upon
grain processing to increase efficiency of feedlot produc=
tiono Chemical composition of sorghum grain shows that its
potential energy is equal to corn and superior to barleyo
However 9 because of the lower starch availability, the
energy potential of sorghum grain has not been reachedo
Many fattening rations contain as much as 85% sorghum
graini ~ny improvement in feeding value of the grain would
be of co.ns.iderable e,c,onomic .. importance to the cattle feeding
industryo
Previous research indicates that the feeding value of
sorghum grain can be improved by both high moisture har
vesting and reconstitutingo The purpose of this study was
to evaluate several methods of high moisture processing of
sorghum grain for fattening cattle.
Processing methods were evaluated on the. basis of
feedlot performance 9 carcass merit and net energyo
1
CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Methods of Processing
It is generally agreed that some processing of grain
is necessary to improve mixing and feeding value over whole
grain. The grain coat of milo is extremely resistant to
digestion; it is .,absolutely necessary to rupture. the grain
before feeding 9 as cattle apparently chew milo very little
in the normal mastication process. This is in contrast to
corn which can be fed whole with a fair degree of success,
as considerable portions of the grain.are broken by chewing
prior to swallowing (Hale and Taylor, 1965).
Grain processing methods have been critically.reviewed
the past few years to determine which methods have the
greatest potentia:l,for improving rate of gain and feed
efficiency for finishing cattle. For 'this review, the
available research data comparing methods of processing
have been sununarized to allow a concise evaluation of the
different methodso The methods of processing to be consid
ered in this review i.ncludea grinding, dry rolling, steam
rolling, pelleting, steam flaking and high moisture
proce~sing.
2
Grinding
Coarse grinding has been commonly used as a control
method to which other processing methods are compared.
There is a very large variation in grain designated as
coarsely groqnd; size of hammer mill screens used to produce
coarsely ground grain has varied from 3/16 in. to l/2 ino
Grains designated as finely ground were produced by using
hammer mill screens that varied from 1/8 in. to 1/4 ino
A summary of 10 trials comparing finely ground milo to
coarsely ground milo is shown in Table 1. Daily gain was
not greatly affected by fineness of grindo Fine grinding
milo decreased feed intake 5%; therefore. efficiency of
gain was improved by 5%.
MlLOs
Processing Method Treatment Control Method Method
Fine grinding
Coarse grinding
TABLE l
FINE VS. COARSE GRINDING
Percent of Control Methoda No. D~ily Daily Feedllbo Trials Gain Feedb Gain
101 95 95
aTreatment method is expressed as% of the control method.
bFeed intake and feed efficiency data on 90% dry matter ba.siso
c(l) 0 (10) 9 (16) 9 (46) 0 (53), (54), (59) 0 (67), and (68). \• i1-1··. ;-·
3
Totusek ~ al. (1964) reported a 5% improvement in
feed efficiency with no significant difference in rate of
gain when finely ground milo was compared to coarsely
ground miloo They concluded that since the finely ground
milo was consumed in smaller quantitiese the energy in the
finely ground milo was more efficiently utilized, and less
fe.ed was required to satisfy the daily, energy requirement
of the calves than was true of the coarsely ground milo.
Fine grinding exposes a tremendous surface.area of
the starch portion .of the grain to rumen microorganisms ..
and .d.igestion in the small intestine. However 0 fine.ly
ground.grains are dusty and blowing might be a problem in
some. areas.
Dzy Rolling
4
Results of thre'e trials (Table II) indicated no advan
tage for finely roiled milo over coarsely rolled milo. The
grain particles resulting from rolling may be multi-fractured c
-and therefore suscep~ible to the entry of enzyme-containing
fluid for digestion (Totusek 9 1968). · If the same amount of
surface area (due to'multi-fracturirig) is available. in dry
rolled grains as in finely ground grain 9 this.would explain
the similarity in feeding value of the two processing
metho.ds. Data summarized from five-trials indicated.an.ly
a slight advantage in efficiency for fine grinding. over dry
rolling3. however, rate of gain was reduced 2% by fine
grinding.
TABLE 11
COMPARISONS OF ROLLED MILO
Percent of Control Methoda
5
' Processing Method Treatment Control
· Method Method No. Daily Daily Feedllb. Trials Gain Feedb Gainb ·
Fine Coarse , rolling rolling 96 97 100
Steam Dry rolling rolling 98 100 102
Steam , rolling Grinding 98 99 101
,Ory Fine rolling grinding 98 97 99
aTreatment method is expressed as% of the control method. bFeed intake and feed efficiency data on 90% dry matter basis.
c(l2) and (13). ' d(6), (61), (64), and (65),
' e(53), (54), and (56). , ,f(l), (16), (26), (46), and (59).
Mehen ~ .!!.!.• (1966) reported no significant differences
in digestion of the important fractions of dry rolled or
finely ground milo as seen in Table Ill.
Conventional steam rolling involves subjecting the
grain to steam for about 3 to 5 minutes prior to rolling •
. Temp.eratures 1 of approximately 180° F. are obtained in such
a'.process (Hale and Taylor, 1965). ,A summary of .four trials
(Table 11) indicated that conventional steam rolling is
6
actually inferior to dry rolling in that rate o.f gain and
feed efficiency were 2% lower for steam rolled milo. Con-
ventional steam rolled milo was of slightly lower value than
ground milo due to lower efficiency of utilization and
reduced rate of gain.
TABLE III
DIGESTIBILITY OF DRY ROLLED VS. FINELY GROUND MILOa
Item
Dry matter Protein True protein Ether extract Crude fiber Nitrogen free extract Total digestible nutrients Gross energy
aMehen ~ sl• (1966).
'\\ •.. ---i-,
Pelleting
Dry Finely Rolled Ground
% % 68.8 70.7 58.7 59.4 80.6 81.4 75.6 72.1 43.3 31.6 76.3 78.5 69.3 70.3 67.3 68.8
- Pelleting a fatt·ening type milo ration will strikingly
improve feed efficiency as indicated by a summary of 12
trials in Table IV. Totusek (1968) reported that pelleting
finely groundp coarsely ground and steam rolled milo
improved total feed efficiency 5. 1%, 9. 2%, and 6 .• 8%,
7
respectively, over the unpelleted milo when rations con-
tained 50% milo and 32% roughage. Rate of gain was not
affected, but dressing percentage was lowered 1% and carcass
grade was decreased slightly by pelleting. Similar results
were observed by Perry~!.!• (1961) when a pelleted fatten
ing type corn ration that contained 20% hay was compared to
the same ration containing dry rolled corn. Feed efficiency
.was increased .. 6% by pelleting; however. carcass grade and
dressing percentage were lowered by pelleting.
TABLE IV
COMPARISONS OF PELLETED GRAINS
Processing Method Percent of Control Methoda Treatment Control No. Daily Dai lb Feedzlbo
Grain Method Method Trials Gain Feed Gain .
Milo Pelleting Grinding Sc 104 94 91
Dry 4d Milo Pelleting rolling 105 92 93
Corn Pelleting Grinding 3e 105 94 89
Dry 2f Corn Pelleting rolling 101 87 90
a.Treatment method is expressed as% of the control method. bFeed intake and feed efficiency data on 90% dry matter basis.
c(36) 9 (53), (54), and (56). d (52) o (55) 0 (57) 0 and {58).
e(24), (30), and {69)o f(24) and (51).
8
Pelleting of corn has been more advantageous than
pelleting of milo. A summary of five trials comparing
pelleted corn to both ground and dry rolled corn (Table IV)
indicates a 10-11% improvement in feed efficiency and also L, an improvement in rate of gain due to pelleting.
Steam Flaking
The feed.ing value of grains definitely can be improved
by flaking. Steam flaking is more than just a method of
steam rolling; the idea of just applying steam and running
the grain through a roller mill apparently will not produce
a product that will bring about the advantages of flaking
over other methods of gra.in processing. Data in the past
indicated varied responses in feedlot gains and feed utili
zation due to steam processing grainso Hubbard (1967)
contributed these variable responses to different conditions
involved in the grain processing. Hale and Taylor (1966)
outlined the key points to the steam processing method of
flaking milo as followss
lo Moisture of the grain raised to approximately
20 percent.
2o Grain enters rollers at 212° to 216° F.
3. Approximately .20 lb. pressure in the steam chamber.
4. Cold roller spacing of 0.003 inch.
5. Flake should we_igh 25 lb. per bu. (air-dry weight
basis).
6. Gelatinization of 30 .to 40 percent.
9
A summary of 17 trials comparing steam flaked to ground
grains is shown in Table V. All grains show a consistent
improvement in feed efficiency, but a varied response is
indicated for daily gain. Milo showed the greatest overall
response to steam flaking in that rate of gain was increased
'10% and feed efficiency 8% compared to dry coarse grinding.
TABLE V
STEAM FLAKED VS. GROUND GRAINS
Processing Method Treatment Contr.ol
Percent of Control Methoda No. Daily Daily Feed/lb.
Grain Method Method Trials Gain Feedb Gainb
Steam Coarse 7C .Milo flaking grinding 110 101 92
Steam 5d Corn flaking Grinding 98 92 91
Steam Coarse 5e Barley flaking grinding 100 95 95
aTreatment method is expressed as % of the control method. bFeed intake and feed efficiency data on 90% dry matter
ba:siso c
' (20)9 (46)9 and (67). d(24), (30), (34)P and (44). ·e(20).
Steam flaking of corn increased feed efficiency 9%,
· but reduced rate of gain and feed consumption 2% and 8%,
10
respectively, as compared to coarse grinding of dry shelled
corn.
Barley has shown less response to steam flaking than
either corn or milo. Steam flaking of barley improved feed
efficiency·5%, reduced. feed consumption 5%,.and did not
affect rate of gain compared .. to dry grinding q
In comparing._ steam flaked grains to dry rolled grains
(Table VI), milo and_corn were markedly impr.o.ved for the
ec.onomically important traits (i.e. 9 rate of gain and feed
~fficiency) by steam flaking. Steam flaking of milo
increased rate of ga.in 8%, feed consumption 3%, and feed
efficiency 4% over dry rolling of milo as indicated by a
summary of six trials.
A summary of eight trials comparing steam flaked corn
to dry rolled corn shows an. advantage in rate of gain (5%)
and feed efficiency (8%) for steam flaked corn. The daily
consumption of flaked corn was reduced 3%.
As previously shown in Table V 9 the feeding value of
barley has not been improved to the.extent of milo and corn
by steam flaking.· A summary of five tria1s- comparing
steam flaked and dry rolled barley indicated no. advantage
in feed efficiency for steam flaked .barley. Rate of gain
was improved.4% and feed consumption was .increased 3% by
steam flaking barley.
11
TABLE VI
STEAM FLAKED VS. DRY ROLLED GRAINS
Method Percent of Control Method a Process in~ Treatment Control No. Daily Dai lb Feedllbo
Grain Method Method Trials Gain Feed Gain
Steam Dry ')
Milo flaking rolling 6c 108 103 96
Steam . Dry gd Corn flaking rolling 105 97 92
Steam Dry 5e Barley flaking rolling 104 103 100
aTreatment method is expressed as% of the control method. QFeed intake and feed efficiency data~on 90% dry matter basis.
c(l9) 9 (2l)o (22)P and (46). 4(19)9 (24) 9 (32)o (33), and (35). e . . ( 19) 9 (21), and (22) •
Hale~~· (1965) reported the flatness of flake was
very important to the utilization of steam flaked milo. The
results of nylon. bag studies to determine the disappearance
of dry matter from dry rolled and steam flaked milo samples
are shown in Table VII. Matsushima and Montgomery (1967)
reported heifers fed "thinu .(1/32 in.) corn flakes gained
4.6% faster and 7.8% more efficiently than those fed "thick"
(l/12 in.) corn flakes. The two types of flakes were pro-
duced by varying the roller spacing.
TABLE VII
EFFECT OF FLATNESS OF FLAKE OF STEAM PROCESSED MILO ON DRY MATTER DISAPPEARANCE FROM NYLON BAGS, %a
12
.-,-· ----------------------------Hours in
Rumen
2
4
6
8
24
aHale il llo
Dry Rolled
2lo4
23o2
27.0
31.9
54.5
(1965)0
Poorly Rolled
23o9
20o9
23.6
29o9
55o0
Regular Rolled
44o7
37.8
44o4
4lo4
6609
Flat Rolled
49al
4408
47o4
49.4
7106
Parrott il .!lo (1967) reported that steam flaking of
barley does not improve the digestibility of the various
proximate fractions on the available TDN. Also, digest-
ibility of barley was not influenced by the degree of flak-
ingo
High Moisture Processing
High moisture processing of grain includes high mois-
ture harvesting and reconstituting of dry graino The
moisture level is normally in a range of 25-35%, High
moisture grain must be stored under anaerobic conditions
to prevent spoilage. Also, for maximum utilization, the
grain must be processed before or after storage.
High moisture processed grains have markedly improved
feeding value over dry processed grains as indicated by a
summary of 36 feeding trials shown in Table VIII. The
improvement in feeding value is consistent for both high
moisture harvested grains and reconstituted grains.
TABLE VIII
COMPARISON OF HIGH MOISTURE GRAIN PROCESSING METHODS
Percent of Control Methoda
13
Grain
Processing Method Treatment Control Method Method
No. Daily Daily Feedllb. Trials Gain Feedb Gain
Miloc Recon.
Cornd Recon.
Milo~ HMH
She 1 I,ed .HMH corn
Grd. ear corng · · HMH
Dry process
Dry process
Dry process
Dry process
Dry process
101
104
100
100
103
93 92
104 95
90 90
93 95
94 92
aTreatment method is expressed as % of the control method .• bFeed intake and feed efficiency data on 90% dry matter basis.
c(37) 0 (46) 0 (47), and (67). d(2), (28), and (29). e(8) 0 (9) 9 (10), (11), {38), and (47). f .
(2) 0 (7) 0 (35) 9 and (50). g{3) 11 (4), (5) 9 (7) 9 (15), (17), and (18).
14
Reconstituting of corn improved feed efficiency 5% and
rate of gain 4% compared to dry processed corn in a summary
of seven trials.
The efficiency of gain was improved 8% and rate of gain
1% by reconstituting milo, compared to dry processed milo.
A summary of three trials with reconstituted sorghum grain
by McGinty ~ s!.l• (1968) indicates a
lo Time of grinding reconstituted sorghum grain is
important if maximum benefits of the process are
to be obtained. Grinding the dry grain before
addition of water gave no improvement in feed
efficiency over dry ground grain.
2. !n ~ and .i!l vitro results indicated no benefit
for sorghum grain reconstituted near freezing
temperatures.
3o There was no difference in feed efficiency between
reconstituted grain stored 10 or 20 days.
4o Differences in initial water temperatures had no
significant influence on efficiency of feed con
version.
5. Cattle fed sorghum grain reconstituted in whole
form at warm temperatures required 10-20% less dry
matter per pound of gain than did cattle fed dry
ground grain.
High moisture harvested milo was utilized 10% more
efficiently than dry milo in a summary of 10 trials. The
improved efficiency was apparently the result of increased
digestibility of the milo as there was no difference in
rate of gaina The digestibility of dry matter, organic
matter, nonprotein organic matter and energy was signifi
cantly higher for reconstituted milo than for finely or
coarsely ground milo (Buchanan-Smith~!.!,., 1968).
High moisture harvested shelled corn was utilized 5%
more ,efficiently, with no advantage in rate of gain, as
compared to dry shelled corn. Feed consumption was 7%
lower for the high moisture harvested shelled corn.
15
High moisture harvesting has shown more promise for
increasing rate of gain and feed efficiency for ear corn
than for shelled corn~ A summary of seven trials comparing
high moisture harvested ground ear corn to dry ear corn
indicated an advantage of 3% in rate of gain and 8% in
feed efficiency for high moisture harvested ground ear corn.
CHAPTER tII
MATERIALS AND METHODS
General
Three trials were conducted to determine the effect of
grain processing method on the feeding value of milo for
fattening beef cattle. Evaluation of the processing method
was by feedlot performance, carcass merit and net energyo
The three trials will be identified as followss Trial I -
Stillwater0 1967-68; Trial 11 -- Fort Reno, 1967-683
Trial Ill -=-Stillwater 0 1968. Experimental procedures
comm.on to all three trials will be discussed under the head
ings of allotment 0 feeding 9 grain processing methods, data
obtained 0 and net energy determination 0 followed by a dis
cussion of procedures specific for each trial under the
same headings.
Allotment
Anguso Hereford, crossbred (Angus X Hereford) steers,
and Angus and Hereford heifers were used in Trial lo Cross
bred (Angus X Hereford) and Hereford steers were used in
Trial II. The calves in Trials I and II were from the
University experimental herds located at the Fort Reno
Station and the Lake Carl Blackwell Range. Hereford, Angus,
and crossbred (Angus X Hereford) heifers were used in
16
17
Trial lllo These heifers were purchased at the Oklahoma City
Stockyardso A randomized complete block design was used in
all trialso The calves were blocked on the basis of weight 0
sex and condition score and randomly assigned to treatment
within each block.
Feeding
In all three trials, a high concentrate ration of 90%
concentrate and 10% roughage was fed ~q libitumo
All animals had access to an open=sided shed, outside
lot and automatic waterers with thermostatically controlled
heating during the wintero
Grain Processing Methods
Finely and extra finely ground milo were produced with
a hammer mill, using 3ol8 and 1.59 mm. screens, respectively.
Dry rolled milo was produced by rolling air-dry whole milo.
with a roller tolerance in excess of 0.076 mm.
Reconstituted milo was obtained by adding water to the
air-dry grain to raise the moisture to the appropriate level
and then stored in oxygen-free conditions for at least 21
days. Prior to feeding 0 the high moisture harvestedtand
reconstituted milo were either ground througl) a 3o 18 mm.
screen or ,rolled with approximately 0.076 mm. tolerance
between the rollers.
Data Obtained
Performance data obtained were average daily gain,
average daily feed lntakep and feed per kg. of gain calcu
lated both on a live shrunk weight basis and on an empty
18
body weight basis~ Empty body weight gain per kg, of feed
and energy gained per kgo of feed were calculated so that a
comparison of weight gain and energy gain pould be made.
Daily feed consumption records were kept. Initial and final
weights were taken after a 16 ... hour shrink off feed and water.
Intermediate weights were taken at 28-day intervals with'
water removed 16 hours prior to weighing.
All animals were slaughtered at the end of the feeding
trials. Rumen weights, both intact and empty 0 were taken
to allow calculation of rumen content. Following a 24-hour
chill, carcass data obtained included carcass grade 0
marblingo ribeye area, fat thickness over the ribeye,
chilled carcass weight and percent kid:p.ey fat. From this
data, dressing percentage and cutability were calculated, 1
The right side of the carcass was then quartered, weighed
first in airo and then in water to allow calculation of
carcass specific gravity.
Dry matter of feeds was determined several times during
each 28-day period o These determinations wer.e averaged and
used to adjust ration treatments to an equal dry matter
1cutability 9 or percent boneless retail cut yield, was estimated by the equation of Murphey et al. (1960) 9 which iss <' .,·. - -
Y=5lo34~(5,78 x A)~(~.462 x B)+(0.740 x C)~(0,0093 x D) where.s
Y=boneless retail cuts, as% of carcass A=avera~e fat thickness over rib~ye (ino) :S=%_ kiqney · fat · C=ribeye area {sqo in.) D=chilled carcass weight (lbo).
content. Grains were sieved and weights per bushel were
taken to characterize the processed grains as to particle
size and density, respectively.
19
Duncan°s New Multiple Range Test (Steel and Tor.rie,
1960) was used to compare treatment means whenever a signif
icant F value was obtained.
Net Energy Determination
A representative slaughter sample was used to estimate
the initial composition of the experimental animals.
The weight of the rumen contents was subtracted from
live shrunk weight to obtain empty body weight. Carcass
specific gravities were calculated by dividing carcass
weight in air by carcass weight in air minus carcass weight
in water.
After completing the feeding trial, all animals were
slaughtered and subjected to essentially the same procedure
as described for the slaughter group.
All net energy calculations and equations used for body
composition are the same as those used by Newsom (1968).
The net energy of each type of processed milo was
calculated by using the mean values for each animal within
each treatment. A computer program was used to make all
net energy calculations,
Trial I
Allotment
Fifteen Angus steers, six Hereford steers, three
20
crossbred (Angus X Hereford) steers, six Angus heifers and
six Hereford heifers, averaging 187.7 kg., were started on
trial November 16, 1967 to compare three types of processed
milo fed in a high concentrate ration. The experimental
design is shown in Table IX.
TABLE IX
TRIAL 18 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN SHOWING NUMBER OF ANIMALS PER TREATMENT
Processed Milo Finely Recon.- Ground- Total
Blocks Ground Ground Recon. Number
l 4 4 4 12
2 , .•.
4 4 3a 11 ,,,.
3 4 ...!t ..1.a .ll -12 12 10 34
aOne steer died of bloat, '
The calves were first separated into groups of three
according to sex, breed 9 weight and age of dam and sire.
The treatments were then randomly assigned within these
groups of threeo The 12 heaviest Angus steers, the 12
heifers and the 12 lightest steers were placed in blocks
one, two and three, respectively.
Feeding
The three types of processed milo -- finely ground,
reconstituted-ground and ground-reconstituted - were fed
in a 90% concentrate mixture. The non-milo ingredients in
21
the ration were combined into a premix. The composition of
the premix and the complete ration is shown in Table x. The
proxima.te analyses of the premix and the processed milo are
shown in Table XI.
TABLE X
TRIAL Is RATION COMPOSITION
Ingredient Percent
Milo
Dehydrated alfalfa pellets (17% C.P.)
Cottonseed hulls
Cottonseed meal (41% C.P.)
Urea (45% Nitrogen)
Salt
Steamed bonemeal
Added per lbo of ration Vitamin A Aureomycin
2040 5
83.0
6.4
4,2
4.2
1.0
0.6
0.6 100.0
1.u. mg •.
TABLE XI
TRIAL Ia PERCENT PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF FEEDS ON DRY MATTER BASIS
Feedstuff Dry a Ashb Crude b Ether b Crudeb NoF,E .. Matter Protein Extract Fiber.
Milo Finely ground 87o4 lo43 9o92 3o55 2o80 82030
Recon.-ground 7108 0.89 8053 2.70 1.85 86.03
Ground=recon. 6706 0.95 8068 3.25 2.00 85.12
Premix 90o5 11055 29073 6035 22.80 29.57
aAverage of 24 determinations.
bAverage of two determinationso
clOO - (sum of values reported for ash 9 crude protein 9 ether extract and crude fiber).
c
N N
23
The calves were started on feed eight days before the
trial begano For the first five days of the pretrial feed~
ing period 0 the calves were on a starter ration consisting
of 5000% finely ground milo, 2000% dehydrated alfalfa pel
lets, 5.0% cottonseed meal 0 2400% cottonseed hulls, Oo5%
salt and Oo5% bonemealo The last three days of the pretrial
period 0 the calves were gradually changed over to the test
rations.
The three rations were fed daily in quantities to
assure availability of feed until the next feeding., Uncon
sumed feed was weighed back frequently to assure that fresh
feed was available at all times. The reconstituted-ground
milo was ground daily except that enough was processed on
Friday to supply the amount needed over the weekend.
Processing
The ground-reconstituted milo was produced by adding
water to the air=dry 11 finely ground milo to raise the mois
ture level to 30%0 The ground-reconstituted milo was then
stored in oxygen=free conditions for at least 21 days prior
to feeding.
The reconstituted-ground milo was produced by adding
water to the air-dry whole milo to raise the moisture level
to 30%. The reconstituted whole milo was then stored in
oxygen-free conditions 21 days and then ground just prior
to feeding.
All of the reconstituted grain was stored in airtight
plastic bags with 4008 kg. per bago
24
All milo used in this study was obtained from the
Stillwater Milling Company in one or two ton quantities as
neededo
Data .. Obtained
The experimental animals were slaughtered on May 22,
1968 after 189 days on feed. All variables 0 including per-
formance .data, carcass data and net energy values, were
subjected to a hierarchical analysis of variance and an abbre ...
viated Doolittle as described by Newsom (1968)0 Analyses
of variance components are shown in Table Xllo
TABLE XII
TRIAL ls ANALYSES OF VARIANCE
Source df
For Feed lntake 9 Feed/Kg. Gain and Net Energy Valuess Total 8 Blocks 2 Treatment 2 Blo.ck X Treatmenta 4
For Average Daily Gain and Carcass Dataa Total Blocks Treatment Block X Treatmenta. Within pen
aError term used to test treatments.
33
2
2
4
25
25
Two c.alves on the ground-reconstituted milo died during
the experiment due to bloat. The feed records were adjusted
by subtracting the estima1:;.~d intake of the dead calves, which
was theaverage intake of the four calves in the pen, from
the total pen intake.
After the trial was st~rted, one steer on the finely
ground milo was found to have one testicle. His average
daily gain and feed required per kgo of gain were adjusted
to a steer equivalento 2
Table XIII illustrates the relative density and particU3
size of the processed milo fed in Trial I.
Ne.t Energy Determination
The slaughter group used for estimating initial compo
sition was the same as for Trials III and IV (Newsom, 1968).
For the 34 experimental animals which completed the
test in Trial I, rumen weights were taken to the nearest
one-fourth lb o. The carcass quarters were weighed in air to
the nearest one-fourth lb. and the quarters of the right
side were weighed in water to the nearest five gm.
Th~ NEm+p and NEm values of the premix were estimated
2using data taken from a trial at the Fort Reno station coi;npar.ing steers O bulls and heifers (Tanner §!.:!:. li•, 196 7), a correction factor (C.F.) was obtained.
~g ~~~~~s i:Si ~:,: = 0.854 (C.F.)
The actual average daily gain of the animal in question was multiplied by this C.F. to obtain his adjusted ADG. His intake was divided by the adjusted gain to obtain adjusted feed per kg. of gain.
Process
Finely _ground
Recon. -ground
Ground-recon.
TABLE XIII
TRIAL Ia PARTICLE SIZEa AND DENSITY'b OF PROCESSED MILO
3.18
0
7~1
1.5
Screen Size (nun.) 2.12 1.41· lo02 0;35·-
Percent Retained on Screen
Oo2
27.l
2.2
8.4
28.3
17.8
37.2
14.6
37.9
32.4
17.6
34.4
lb. thru per
..... 0 • .3.6 ..... ·----·" ....... bu ......... .
21.8
5.3
6.2
42~7
26.4
34.9
aParticle sizes Four 100 gm. samples of each grain were sieved.
bTest weights.reported are the average of six determinations and are on a 90% dry matter basis •.
N 0\
to be 918.9 (Morrison, 1959) and 1069.6 (Lofgreen and
Garrett, 1967) kcal. per kg., respectively.
27
Since feed intake was on a pen basis, net energy values
are valid only for a pen of animals. The computer program
was.designed to use the mean intake of a pen of animals to
compare with the caloric gain and maintenance requirement of
each animal. The net energy values were then averaged for
each treatment.
Trial ll
Allotment
Seventy-four Hereford steers and eight crossbred
(Angus X Hereford) steers, averaging 230.9 kg,, were started
on trial December 12, 1967 to compare seven types of proc
essed.milo fed in a high concentrate ration. Twelve head
were on each treatment, in four pens of three head each,
~rranged in a randomized block design as shown in Table XIV.
The 84 calves were.selected from a total of 90 head,
The 90 head were plotted on graph paper with shrunk weight
. and condition. score as the X and Y axes, respectively, and
then divided by diagonal lines into two blocks, with the
heaviest steers and the hi'gttest; condition score making up
one block and the lightest steers with the lowest condition
score making up the second block. The six calves with the
lowest condition score and lightest in weight were not put
on trial.
TABLE XIV
TRIAL Ils EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN SHOWING NUMBER OF ANIMALS PER TREATMENT
Processed Milo Coarsely Finely Extra HMH- HMH- Recon.- Recono-
Blocks Rolled Ground Finely Ground Rolled Ground Rolled .. Ground
1 6 6 6 6 6 6 5a
2 6 6 5a 5a 6 6 6
aOne steer died.
Total Number
41
40 -81
N 00
29
Feeding
The seven types of processed milo were fed in a 90%
concentrate mixture. The non-milo ingredients in the ration
were combin.ed into a premix. The composition of the premix
and the complete ration is shown in Table XV. The proximate
analyses of the premix and the processed milo are shown in
Table XVI.
TABLE XV
TRIAL II I RATION COMPOSITION
Ingredient Percent
Milo
Alfalfa hay, chopped
Cottonseed hulls
Cottonseed meal
Ur.ea (42% Nitrogen)
Salt
Bonemeal
Added per lb. of ration Vitamin A Aureomycin
1500 5
83.4
6.0
4,0
4.0
1.0
1.0
o.6 100.0.
I.u. mg.
TABLE XVI
TRIAL lis PERCENT PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF FEEDS ON DRY MATTER BASIS
Feed stuff Dry .. a b
Crude b Ether b c Ash Crudeb N.F.E. .... Matter Protein Extract Fiber
Milo Coarsely rolled 85.3 1.37 8,86 3.85 1.95 83.97
Finely ground 85.5 1.16 9.35 3.00 2.10 84.39 '
Extra finely ground 85.5 1.31 10.28 3,65 1.95 ,?2.81
HMH-ground 70.1 0.94 8.36 2.30 1.10 87.30
HMH-r9lled 68.9 0.91 8.06 1.80 0,85 88.38 ..
Recon,-ground 74,3 1.27 8.77 3.40 1.45 85.11
Recon. -rolled 73.4 1.03 9,05 2.90 1.40 85.62
Premix 90.9 10.82 36070 6.05 25.29 21.14
-aAverage of 24 determination!3.
bAverage of two determinations.
clOO - (sum of values reported for ash, crude protein, ether extract and crude fiper) .. w 0
31
The steers were started on feed six days before the
trial began. The initial ration consisted of eight lbo of
test ration and four lb. of cottonseed hulls per head per
day. The test ration was increased gradually until the
steers.were receiving 13 lb. of test ration on the sixth
day following initial feeding.
The four "wet" grains, high moisture harvested-ground,
high moisture harvested-rolled, reconstituted-ground and
reconstituted-rolled, were processed daily, with the excep
tion that enough was processed on Friday to feed over the
weekend.
The coarsely rolled, finely ground and extra finely
ground grains were processed, combined with premix, and
stored in one ton quantities.
The steers were fed once daily in sufficient quantities
to assure availability of feed until the next feeding. · Feed
was weighed to the nearest pound. Unconsumed feed was
we.ighed back and removed as necessary to assure fresh feed.
Dry matterdeterminations·were taken every 28 days and used
to adjust all rations to an equivalent dry matter content.
Processing .
The extra finely ground milo used in this trial was
produced by grinding dry mi lo through a hammer mill with a
1.59 mm. screen. The coarsely rolled milo was produced by
rolling .dry.milo through a roller mill to allow approximate
ly 25% of the grain to fall through unbroken.
The reconstituted milo was produced by adding water to
32
air-dry milo as it was augered into a 4.3 X 8,2 m.Harvestore
glass-lined .. , airtight silo, .. The moisture content was raised
from 14 to 28%,
The high. mo.is.ture harvested milo was combined at
appr.oximat.ely .3.2% moisture, After harvesting, it was stored
in a 4,3 X 8.2 m. Harvestore glass-lined, airtight silo,
All milo used in this study was of the variety Northrup
King 222 and was grown on the Fort Reno station.
Data Obtained
The steers were slaughtered on two different days after
an av.erage. of 174 days on feed,
Thr.ee .steers died due to bloat during the feeding
trial11 one.each.on reconstituted-rolled, high moisture
harvested~ground .. and extra finely ground milo. The feed
reco.rds .were ..... adjusted by subtracting the estimated intake
of the deceas.ed steer, which was the average intake of the
three .. calves .in the pen, .from the total pen intake,
Analysis of variance procedures were the same as those
for Trial I (page 24). Variance components are shown in
Table XVII.
The relative density and particle size of the proc-
essed milo are shown in Table XVIII.
Net Energy Determination
The a.laughter group and the procedures for net energy
determina.tion were the same as those used for Trial 1
(page .25),
The NEm+p and NEm values of the premix were est~~ated
33
to be 839.3 (Morrison, 1959) and 970.4 (Lofgreen and Garrett,
1967) kcal. per kg., respectively.
TABLE XVII
TRIAL Ila ANALYSES OF VARIANCE
Source df
For Feed lntake 0 Feed/Kg. Gain and Net Energy Valuess Total 13 Blocks Treatments Block X Treatmenta
For Average Daily Gain and Carcass Datas Total Blocks Treatment Block X Treatmenta Within pen
aError term used to test treatments.
1
6
6
81 1
6
6
68
,f·f:,,
TABLE XVIII
TRIAL Ilg PARTICLE SIZEa AND DENSITYb OF PROCESSED MILO
~., ,. •"··~·----.
Process Screen Size {rmno} lb. 4.76 3ol8 2ol2 le41 lo02 0.36 thru per
• ••• ,c< .o.c36. ·•·· • cbu •...
Percent Retained on Screen
Coarsely rolled 0 33.40 59.80 5.80 0.62 0.17 0.18 53.3
Finely ground 0 0.14 0.90 9.64 18.10 32.60 38.60 44.7
Extra finely ground 0 Oo12 0.12 0.39 4.17 28.60 66.60 40.8
HMH-ground 0 0.56 1.90 5.90 9.00 18.30 64.30 31.3
HMH-rolled 6.20 26~60 19.80 7.80 3.30 9o00 27.20 27.8
Recon.-ground 0 0,19 1.00 11.60 14.70 22.80 49.70 37.6
Recon.-rolled 4.60 27020 24.30 10090 3.80 7.20 22.00 30.1
<:lParticle .sizeg Four 100 gm. samples of each grain were sieved.
bTest weights reported are the average of four determinations and are on 90% dry matter basis.
w +:"'
35
Trial Ill
Allotment
Twenty-two Angus 0 twenty Hereford and eight crossbred
{Angus X Hereford) heifers were started on trial July 2 9
1968 to compare five types of processed milo in a high con-
centrate ration. The initial weight of the heifers was
170.,9 kg., The experimental design is shown in Table XIX.
Blocks
1
2
TABLE XIX
TRIAL Illa EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN SHOWING NUMBER OF ANIMALS PER TREATMENT
Processed Milo Dry Recon.- Recon.- Recon ... Recon.-Rolled 22% 30% 38% 38%-1-day
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 4a 5 5
Total Number
25
24
49
aOne heifer died after completion of performance data; pen average used in calculating net energy values and carcass data a
The three groups (Angus, Hereford and crossbred
heifers} were blocked independently into two blocks based
on weight and condition, using the same method that was
used in Trial 11 {page 27). Two Angus heifers were
selected at random to put in the crossbred group.
Feeding
The five types of processed milo were fed in a 90%
36
concentrate mixture. The non-milo ingredients in the ration
were combined into .a premix. The composition of the premix
and the complete ration is shown in Table xx. The proximate
analyses of the premix and the processed milo are shown in
Table XXI.
TABLE XX
TRIAL Ills RATION COMPOSITION
Ingredient Percent
Milo
Dehydrated alfalfa pellet crumbles (17% C.P.)
Cottonseed hulls .
Soybean meal crumbles (44% C~P.)
Urea (45% Nitrogen)
Salt
Bonemeal
Added per lb. of ration Vitamin A Aureomycin
1600 5
84.00
4.93
4.93
4.30
0.64
0.60
0.60
100.0
1.u. mg.
TABLE XXI
TRIAL Ills PERCENT PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF FEEDS ON DRY MATTER BASIS , .. ,_, .................. ~ .. -.• •-• ....... _ _, ,-. _,. """ ' • -·- ~-. "•'• •-Tu• j,,, ·~'- "-' ,a '"
Feedstuff
Milo Dry rolled
Recon.-22% --
Recon,-30~ ·-- ("•i
Recon.-38%
Recon. -.38%-l"!".day
Premix
Dry b - Matter.~ Ash . , . ., .. '"- ., ~
86!9 1.34
77,3 1.08
68.6 0.77
62.0 0.61 ..
64.7 0.64
89.9 7.53
Crude b . Protein
10.84
10.51
7.74
8.45
7.75
37,46 ·,~__,,._,_. '0'' w• ,,. •• ""'""-S'°'n••·~·-·•- --· "••"-~'""•'"" ... ';,••"" .. · • ..., •• ,., •. ,.,,,,,,,, ''°'• ••••·,,, ••••_., ... • ''T' .-·,..-~ .. , ..... ~~- ••~•'• •••'•'•'."'"'""' OM" ••o
a Aver.age of. 16. deter.minations.
b . Aver.age of two deter.minat:ions.
Ether b Extract ..
3.11
3.08
2.79
2.41
2.41
2.31
. c N.F.E. C7'1deb
.. Fiber . _. .. _ .. ··-- ....
1.52 83.19
1.50 83.83
1.11 87~59
1.02 87.51
0.90 88.30
18.48 34.22 "'"'""" ,,-,-... ~-.· • W> .... ,,• '•"•'"••W•''O, __ ,,...,., •• , -••,•·•-•• --·-- 0 "•'•'" ~-- • •H •'S ,,,.•,• ,.,,.__ •
clO() .... (stlll\ o-f valti~s reported for ash, crude protein, E!ther [email protected] and crude fiber).
l..,J ~
38
The calves were put on a starter ration consisting of
40% dehydrated alfalfa pellets, 10% cottonseed meal, 48%
cottonseed hulls, 1% salt and 1% bonemeal for 20 days prior
to the start of.the trial, At this point, the processed
milo was introduc.ed into the ration at the rate of 10%11
The milo was increased 5% per day until the calves were on
full feed.
The five rations were processed and fed daily in quan
tities to assure availability of feed until the next feeding,
Unconsumed feed was weighed back daily and removed to assure
fresh feed was available at all times.
Processing
The. 22 and 30% reconstituted milo was produced by
adding the necessary amount of water to air-dry milo and
mixing in a cement mixer. The 38% reconstituted milo was
produced by soaking the air-dry whole milo approximately
10 hourso The 22, 30 and 38% reconstituted whole milo was
then stored under oxygen-free conditions in airtight
plastic bags.for 21 days or moreo
The reconstituted-1-day milo was produced by soaking
whole air-dry milo 12 hours and then letting it set in a
0.91 m. X 0,60 m. X 0.30 m, open container for 24 hours
prior to rolling and feeding.
All milo. used in this study was obtained from the
Stillwater Milling Company in one or two top quantities
as neededo
39
Data Obtained
Performance data was sununarized after an average of 112
days on feed. The heifers were then subjected to measure
ment by the K40 counter and ultrasonic equipment prior to
slaughter. The cattle were removed in two different groups,
with the heavy block being slaughtered first.
One heifer died of .heat stress following the K40 and
ultrasonic measurement. Her data is included in feedlot
perf ormanc.e O but a pen average was used in net energy and
carcass data. All variables were subjected to a factorial
analysis of variance. The analyses of variance components
are shown in Table XXII.
TABLE XXII
TRIAL Ills .. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE
Source df
For Feed· in.take, Feed/Kgo Gain and Net Energy Values, Total 9 Blocks Treatment Block X Treatmenta
For Average Daily Gain and Carcass Dc1;1.taa Total· Blocks rreatment Block X Treatmenta Within pen
aE~ror term used to test treatments.
l
4
4
48
l
4
4 39
40
The relative density and particle size of the processed
milo are shown in Table XXIII.
Net Energy Determination
Six calves_were slaughtered to estimate the initial
caloric content .. of the experimental heifers in Trial lllo
The slaughter group was selected at random from the 56 head ..
The procedures used .for net energy calculations and
body composition were the .. same. as used by Newsom (1968) ..
The-NEm+p and NEm values of the premix were estimated
to be 97809 (Morrison, 1959) and 1108.9 (Lofgreen and
Garrett, 1967) kcalo per kg., respectivelyo
TABLE XXIII
TRIAL 111 s PARTICLE SIZEa AND DENSITYb OF PROCESSED MILO
·~, .. .,-,,~..-.. ~- --...... ,.-.. ·---· .,. .. ~·-.. - ... - .. _. . ....,. ....... .
Scr.een Size (mm.) lb. 4 2 l · o.5 0.25 0.125 thru per
Process
·•""""""····--· ...... ,.... .... . .·.· ., .............. , .. a .•. 125 .. - ..... , .... ·---bu .•.......
Percent Retained on Screen
Dry rolled 0!3 30 0 9 61.8 3.0 3,0 0.5 0.5 40.7
Recon.-22% 42 0 8 43,8 6,l 2.8 3.l l,4 0 27.2
Recon.-30% 41,4 35,5 8.6 9.3 4.9 0.3 0 24.5
Recon.-38% 50 0 2 38.7 5.9 4.2 l.O O O 22.3
Recon.-38%-1.-day 0.3 43.3 41.6 8.2 4.5 2~1 0 23 • .1 - ,,,,• <-• ·-··• • , 0 ,,,.,••-·-·· .~--.,,,,•,,S,,,..,..~-~ ... ,,,,•~,, ....... ,,,,,••·-·~<'•' N•>h"''"•..-•D~<,.P•••'-'•••,,· .................... ...,.. .'••·-~~ ....... , .... ,:,•••o,•'.C:,•,,•-....-,.,. • .,, •• ,. ,"•-•••~ ,•·• ,,.,._,,,,••W .. , , .. -,.-.,. ~'-'•4~---.... ·~
aParticle sizes Four 100 gm. samples of each grain were seived.
bTest weights.reported are the average of six determinations and are on a 90% dry matter basis. .
~ .....
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Trial I
Feedlot Performance
Feedlot performance of the calve~ fed the three types
o.f .. .processed milo is sho.:wn in Table XXIV o Significant F
values were obtained for average daily gain (P<.05) and
feed/kg. empty body we .. ight._gain (P<.05). Comparison of
treatment means-indicated.the calves on reconstituted-ground
milo gained sign.ificant.ly (P<.05) faster than those on
ground-reconsti:tut.ed .milo. The ca_lves on the reconstituted
ground milo ration required significantly (P<.05) less feed
per kg. of empty body weight gain than those on the ground
reconstituted milo ration; the calves on the finely ground
milo ration were intermediate between the other two treat
ments. The average daily intake of the total ration and
grain was almost identical for the three treatmentso
Although the differences in feed/kg. of gain of total ration
were not significant (P<.05) on a shrunk weight basis, the
calves on reconstituted-ground milo required 9.0% less
feed/kg. of gain than those on the finely ground treatment.
Net Energy
Net energy values of the three types of processeq mi'lo
42
TABLE XXIV
TRIAL ls FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE {189 :PAYS)
Item
No. steers
Initial live. shrunk wt., kg. Final live shrunk wt. , kg o
Average da.i ly gain, kij. g Average dai.ly intake { total ration), kg. Average.:daily intake {grain),- kg. Feed/kg •. gain {total ration)• kg. Feed/kg, gain {grain), kg,
lni tial emp.ty body wt o , kg. F.inal emp.ty body wt • t kg. Average _daily EBW g_ain, kg. Feed/kg, EBW gain {total ration), kg.g Feed/kg .• EBW gain (grain) 9 kg.
aDry milo ground througa 3.18 mm •. screen.
Finelya Ground
12 185.90 386.501 2
1.02' 6,64 5.48 6.,34 5.23
174.90 366.50
1.011 2 6.64 • 5.47
b Recon.-Ground
12 188~80 408.402
1.14 6.63 5.51 5~77 4~79
177.70 387.60
1.111 6.02 5~00
c Ground-Recon.
10 189.90 385.801
1.00 6.70 5~50 6~56 5.39
178.70 367.80
1~002 6.80 -5.58
s-d x
0~04 0.14 0.11 0.19 0~14
o.o4 0.17 0.13
Fe
. f 7.40 0.04 0~08 3~86 2.56
5.92f 7.27 -6.39
b . . Dry milo was reconstituted -whole, s-tored 21 days, and g_round through 3 .18 mm. screen just prior to feeding.
cDry milo was ground through a 3.18 mm. screen, reconstituted, stored for 21 days and then fed,
dstandard error of treatment means.
eCalculated F value from analysis of variance.
fSignificant {P<~05) ~-gAny two means without a common number differ significantly {P<~05).
~ w
44
are shown in Table XXV. Differences in net energy values
were nonsignificant (P>.05), The NEP value of finely ground
milo was 114,8 megcal,/100 kg, The NEP values oJ. ground
reconstituted and reconstituted-ground milo were 3o0% and
13.9% greater, respectively, than the NEP of finely ground
mi loo
Carcass.Merit .. . t
Apparently treatment had no affect on carcass merit
for the criteria shown in Table XXVI. None of the F values
for any of the carcass traits approached significance
(P>.05).
Trial II
Feedlot Performance
Feedlot performance of the calves fed the seven types
of processed milo is shown in Table XXVII. Significant
(P<.05) F values were obtained for average daily intake of
both total ration and grain. Differences in total ration/kg.
of gain and grain/kg. of gain were also significant (P<.05).
Comparison of treatment means indicated. that the calves on
high moisture harvested-ground milo consumed significantly
less total ration and grain _.than those on the other six
treatments. The feed consumption of the calves on extra
finely ground, high moisture harvested-rolled and reconsti
tuted-g:t'ound milo was very .similar. The feed intake of
coarsely rolled and finely ground milo was significantly
higher than that of the other five tre.atments. Feed/kg, of
Net Energy Value
TABLE XXV
TRIAL Is _.NET -.ENERGY VALUES _QF PROCESSED MILO
Finely -Ground
Recon.Ground
GroundRecon.
s-a x
NEm+p of total rationC?
NEm+p of milod
~---.,--"!l!··;Megcal .• _/IlO.-k.g. ----------- .. 140.7 157.2 148,5 5,41
NEm of miloe
NE of milof p
158:.T
172.,-2_
114.8
a Standar.d. .. error. of treatment me.ans.. •.
170.5
196.Q
130,7
bCalculated F valua.fr.om anal}l-sis of variance,
c:Energy for gain. and maintenance . + intake._ of_ totaL ration,
16:0.·a
177.5
118.3
6,55 ..
8,15
d(Energy for l!;a.in. and main.te~.e.-... e~e.i:gy. attr.ibu.ted. tCl basal) + intake of milo.
eNE X L50, (l.50 = ratio of NE. to NEP on basis. of av. crude-fiber content). p m .
£Determined by dividing maintenance requirement and ene~gy gai~ed between miio and premix.on basis of ratio in ration (83% milo, 17% premix).
Fb
2~6.4
2,38
2.69
.,::VI
Item
No. steers , D - ' cr1C _ ressing 10 d Carcass grade R·b- . e 1.-eye area, sq., l.Do Fat thickness, in.,f Marblingg Cutability 9 %h
TABLE XXVI
TRIAL Is CARCASS MERIT
Finely Ground
12 611129 10.54 10024
Oo67 13.67 49.04
Recon.Ground
J.2
61.72 10005 11.14 o.s1
13,50 48.,51
aStandard error of treatment means. bCalculated F value from analysis of; variance.
GroundRecon.
10 61.89
9.87' 10. 66-0.80
14.00 48.,35
s-a x
Oo58 0.28 0.19 0.05 0.60 Oo22
cCalculated on basis of final live shrunk weight and chilled carcass weight. du.s.o~-A. grad.es converted to following numerical designationss .. h.igh prime-15, av. prime-14; low pr.ime-13 9 high choice-12, avo choice=ll, low choice=lO, high good-9, av~ good-8, low good-7.
eDetermined by measurements of ribeye tracings at the 12th rib~ fAverage of three measurements on ribeye tracingso
Fb
1.67 0.72 0.69 2,81 0.19 3.15
~Marb.ling...scorc0s, !=devoid minus to 30=abundant plus, with 3 scores per classification (minus, average, p1us).
hPercent of boneless trimmed retail cuts on carcass basis=5l.78 - 5o78 (fat thickness) - 4.,62 (% kidney fat)+ ,740 (ribeye area) - .0093 (chilled carcass wt,),
+' 0\
TABLE XXVII
TRIAL 111 FEEDLOT PERFORV.At',CE
Item
No, steers No, days on feed
Initial live shrunk wt,, c/cg.
Final live shrunk wt,, kg. Average daily gain,. kg, Average daily intake (total ration), kg., Average. daiJ..y intake (grain, kg, c
Feed/kg, gain {total ration), kgc
Feed/kg, gain (grain), kg, c
Initial empty body wt,, kg, .Final empty body wt,, kg, Average daily EBw gain, kg, Feed/kg, EBW.gain (total ration), kg,
Feed/kg, EBW gain (grain), ki>;,
c
Coa·rsely Rolled
12 174
232,80
409.3')
1.01
7.654
6.314
7.604
6.274
218,70 394.50
1.01 7,61
6.28
aStandard error of treatment means,
bCalculated F value .from analysis of variance,
Finely. Ground
12 174
233.20
421. 70 l.06 7.614
6.294 7.123,4
5.883 •4
219., lO
405,10 . 1,06
7 ,20
5.95
Extra Finely Ground
11
175
234,80
412,00 0,99
6,652
5.492
6,643
5,482 •3
220.60 393, '.)')
0,99 6,82
5.63
cAriy tw'o values without a·cormnon number differ significantly (P<,05),
dSignificant {P<, 05),
Wil'IGround
ll
175
224.5')
401,60 0.99 6,081
5,031
6,472 •3
5.352 •3
211, 00 382.80
0.98 6.66 5,51
HMHRolled
12 174
232,80
440.60 1.17 6,872 •3
5,662 •3
5. 78 1
4,761
218.70 423,40
1.17 5,86 4,82
Recon,Ground
12 174
229,60
411,60 l,02
6,802 •3
5,682 •3
6.603
5,513
215.70 393.80
1.02 6.73 5.62
Recon,Rolled
11
173
233,80
444.90 l,19
7.113
5,923
5,921,2
4,921 •2
219,60 427,30
1.19. 6,01
5.00
a sx
0,05 0,12
0.10 0,20
0.16
Fb
2,52 8,66d
8.53d 8,62d
a.sod
0.05 2.77 0.32 3. 77 0,27 3.66
+:"
gain for the high moisture harvested-rolled and reconsti
tuted-rolled grains was significantly lower than that for
the dry processed grains. Feed/kg. of gain of high mois
ture harvested-ground and reconstituted-ground milo was
significantly lower (P<.05) than on coarsely rolled milo.
48
Although differences in rate of gain were not signifi
cant (P>,05), calves fed high moisture harvested-rolled and
reconstituted-rolled milo gained 10.3 and 12.0% faster,
respectively, than calves fed finely ground milo. Rates
of gain were very similar for the other treatments.
Net Energy
Calculated net energy values of the seven types of
processed milo are shown in Table XXVIII. Significant F
values (P<.05) were obtained· for NEm+p of total ration,
NEm+p of milo and NEP of milo. Comparison of treatment
means indicated that extra finely ground, high moisture
harvested-ground, high moisture harvested-rolled and
reconstituted-rolled milo were significantly (P<.05) higher
than coarsely rolled and finely ground milo for all three
net energy values. Also, reconstituted-ground milo was
significantly (P<.05) higher than coarsely rolled milo for
all three values.
Coarsely rolled milo produced an estimated NEP value
of 90.4 megcal./100 kg. Increases in NEP for the six other
processing methods, .compared to coarsely rolled milo, were
as follows: finely ground, 5.4%; reconstituted-ground,
24.8%; extra finely ground, 30.6%; reconstituted-rolled,
Net Energy Value
TABLE XX.VIII
TRIAL Ilg NET ENERGY VALUES OF PROCESSED MILO
Coarsely Finely Extra HMH= HMH= ReconoRolled Ground Finely Ground Rolled Ground
Ground
a Recon. = s-Rolled x
~~-~---~-~--~-~-~Megcal./100 kg.~~~-~~~~~~-·---~~~----NEm+p of total rationc 0 g 130061 13404192 151033, 157013 157 0 33 147 0 2293
.-. ?"'":, 156013 3o83
Fb
8.64h
NE of milod 9 g m+p 140 .. 61 145o01P2 165o63,' 172.53 173003 159072•3 170.63 4.58 's.74h
NEm of miloe 135.6 143.0 177.2 188.4 192.5 169.2
NEP of milof,g 90041 95.3 1'2 11s.13 125.63 128.33 112.82•3
aStandard error of treatment means. bCalculated F value from analysis of variance. cEnergy for gain and mai~tenance + intake of total ration a
191.6
127. 13 5.74
d(Energy for gain and maintenance - energy attributed to basal).;,, intake of milo.
7.59h
eNEP X L50p (1.50 = ratio of NEm to NEP on basis of av. crude fiber content)., fDetermined by dividing maintenance requirement and energy gained between milo and premix on basis of ratio in ration (83% milo, 17% premix).
gAny two values without a common number differ significantly (P<.05). hSignificant (P<.05).
.i;:-. \0
41. 3%1 and high moisture harvested-rolled, t~L 9%.
Carcass Merit
The seven types of processed milo fed in this trial
produced carcasses that were not significantly (P<.05)
different for any of the criteria shown in Table XXIX.
Trial III
Feedlot Performance
50
Feedlot performance of the steers fed the five types
of processed milo is shown in Table XXXo Significant
(P<.05) F values were obtained for total ration/kg. of gain
and grain/kg. of gain. Comparison of treatment means
indicated that the feed efficiency of the reconstituted
30 and 38% milo was significantly improved over dry rolled,
22 and 38%-1-day milo.
Although differences in rate of gain were not signifi
cant (P>o05), 22% milo produced gain 8.0% higher than dry
rolled milo. Rates of gain for the 30 0 38 and 38%-1-day
reconstituted milo were 2.4, 7.6 and 2.4% lower, respec
tively0 than dry rolled milo. The heifers on 30 and 38%
milo consumed 15.0 and 19.1% less feed 9 respectively, but
because of similar gain, were 11.8 and 12.5% more efficient
in utilizing feed than the heifers on dry rolled milo.
Feed intake and feed efficiency were similar for the cattle
on dry rolled, 22 and 38%-1-day milo.
Feed efficiency values expressed as total ration or
grain/kg. of empty body weight gain produced results
"""" Item
No. steers
Dressing %c d Carcass grade e Ribeye areaosq.in.f Fat thicknesso in. Marblingg h Cutabilityg %
TABLE XXIX
TRIAL Ils CARCASS MERIT
Coarsely Finely Rolled Ground
12 59.63
9.16 10.55
o.·62 12.08 49.52
12 59.29
9.67 10.45 0.72
13.,08 48.68
Extra HMH= HMH= Finely Ground Rolled Ground
11 59.07
9.00 10.68 0.63
11.91 49.58
11 61.43
9.45 10.32 0.60
12.55 49.48
12 60.22
9.75 11.21 0.67
13.42 49.28
aStandard error of treatment means. bCalculated F value from analysis of variance.
a Recon.- Recono= S= Ground Rolled x
12 59.12
9.25 10.25 0.64
12.17 49.31
11
59.94 9.82
10.70 0.72
14.64 49.87
2.26 0.31 0.17 o.59 0.39 0.41
cCalculated on basis of final live shrunk weight and chilled carcass weight.
Fb
0.91 l.07 3.63 0.67 0.62 0.74
du.s.D.A. carcass~grades converted to following numerical designationss high prime=l5p av. prime-14, low prime-13 0 high choice-12D av. choice-11 0 low choice ... 10, high good=9o av. good-8, low good-7. -
eDetermined by measurements of ribeye tracings at the 12th rib.
fAverage of three measurements on ribeye tracings. gMarbling scores, l=devoid minus to 30=abundant plus 0 with 3 scores per classification
(minus 9 average p plus) .. hPercent of boneless trimmed retail cuts on carcass basis=51.34 = 5.78 (fat thickness)
-4.62 (% kidney fat)+ .740 (ribeye area) - .0093 (chilled carcass wt.)o
VI I-'
TABLE XXX
TRIAL Ills FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE (112 DAYS}
Item Dry Recon.- Recono= Recon .... Recon.- a Fb s ... Rolled 22% 30% 38% 38% ... l-day x
No. heifers 10 10 10 10 10 Initial live shrunk Wtoekg. 172010 170.30 173.00 166.00 172.80 Final live shrunk_wt. 9 kg. 299.40 308.20 297.80 289.60 296.70 Av. daily gain, kg. 1.14 1.23 1.11 l.05 1.11 0.05 1.65 . g 7 .63- 7.90 6.48 6.17 7.29 0.39 4.00 Av, daily intake» kg. Av daily intake 9 k§.h 6.412 6.621 2 5.43 5.18 6.162 0.33, 4.02 Feed/kg. gain» kg. ,g 6.782 6.511'2 5.98t 5.961 6.622 o. 16' 6.42c Feed/kg. gain 9 kg,e,h 5.70 5.46, 5.01 5.001 5.60 0.13 6.68c Initial empty body wt.,kg. 158.20 156.50 159.00 152.60 158.80 Final empty body wt.,kg. 287.10 295.80 286.50 278.00 283.00 Av. _daily EBW gain, kgo 1.152 1.242 1.131 l.071 1.112 0.05 1.61 Feed/kg. EBW gain, kg.~,g 6.70 6.44 5.80 5.88 6.62 0.11 15.26c Feed/kg·.- ··EBW ~gai:n, ·1cg;f,h ·- 5~622 - -5.402 ·
.astandard error of treatritent means. bCalculated F value from analysis .·of variance. cSignificant (P<.05). dSignificant (P< •. 01).
4.861 4;931-- ···· --·s;s92---·--·0;09- -16'; 11d
eAny 2 means without a conuhori'·'=number differ significantly (P<.05). fAny 2 means without a common numbe_r .differ significantly (P<.01). gTotal · ration., hGrain.'
VI N
similar .to those previously discussed on a shrunk weight
basis.
Net Energy
The calculated net energy values of the five types of
processed milo are shown in Table XXXI. Significant F
values were obtained for NEm+p of the total ration and
NEm+p of the milo. Comparison of the treatment means
indicated that the NEm+p of the total ration and the milo
was significantly higher for 30 and 38% milo than for dry
rolled and 22% milo.
53
Dry rolled milo produced an estimated NEP value of
109.4 megcal./100 kg. Comparison of the other four proc
essing methods with dry rolled indicated increases in NEP
as followss 38%-1-day milo, 6.4%; 22% milo 0 7.8%; 30% milo,
34.8%; and 38% milo, 39.3%.
Carcass Merit
The five types of processed milo fed in· this trial
produced carcasses that were not significantly different
for any of the criteria shown in Table XXXIl.
-...._-_,
TABLE XXXI
TRIAL Ills NET ENERGY VALUES OF PROCESSED MILO
Net Energy Value Dry Recona"' Recon.= Recon.= Recon~--Rolled 22% 30% 38% 38%-1-day. _
c=,Q>c=,c:gcici;::r,e:::tc,cga;,C;:t~CQc;;aci;,Megcal .-·,100 kg. i=c;oc::ac,c=,CQC:SC:::,C:lltClmtO ______
NEm+p of total rationc 9 g 131.,31 135.81 157.12
NEm+p of milod 9 $ 137. 61 143.11 168.73
NEm of miloe 164.1 176.9 22103
NEP of milof 109.4 117.9 147.5
aStandard error of treatment means. bCalculated F value from analysis--o-f variance.
156~62
167.7203
228.6
152.4
cEnergy for gain and maintenance..;.. intake of total ration.
136. 61
143.61 ' 2
174.6
116.4
s-a x
5.04
6.04
9.71
d(Energy for gain and-maintenance - energy attributed to basal)+ intake of -milo.
eNEP X 1.50, (1.50 = ratio of NEm to NEP on basis of av. crude fiber content) .. fDeterm_ ined by dividing maintenance requirement and energr gained between milo and
premix on basis of ratio in ration (84% milo o- 16% premix)• _ gAny two values without a common number differ significantly (P<.05).
Fb
6.68
6.70
4.58
VI .,::,.
TABLE XXXII
TRIAL 1118 CARCASS MERIT
Item
No. heifers Dressing %c d Carcass g.rade . e Ribeye area 0 sq. if .. Fat thickness 0 in. Marbling8 h Cutability, %
Dry Rolled
10 59.30
9.80 9.08 0.60
13.70 50.00
Recono ... Recon.-22% 30%
10 9 .59.39 59.42
9.90 9.30 9.46 9.59 0.63 0.56
14.30 13.80 50.22 50.41
~tandard error of treatment means. bCalculated F value from. analysis of variance.
Recon .... 38%
10 58.80 10.20 8.57 0.61
15.10 49.64
Recon~- s-a 38% ... l-day. x
10 59.21 0.640
9.80 0.130 9~08 0.415 0.61 0.064
13.60 0.406 50.24. 1.890
cCalculat.ed on basis of final live shrunk weight and chilled carcass weight. dUoS~D~A. grades converted to following numerical designationsg high-prime .. 15, av.
prime-14, low prime-l3, high choice-12, av. choice-11~ low choice ... 10, high good=9, av. good-So low good-7.
eDetermined by measurements of ribeye tracings at the 12th rib. fAverage of three measurements on ribeye tracings.
Fb
0.150 0.620 0.850 0.184 1.270 0.760
gMarbling scores, l~devoid minus to 30=abundant plus, with 3 scores per classification (minus, average~ plus).
hPerc:ent o'.f boneless trinuned .retail cuts on carcass basis=51. 78 ... 5. 78 (fat thickness) ... 4.62 (% kidney fat)+ .740 (ri}?eye area) - .0093 (chilled carcass wt.)~
VI VI
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The air-dry milo, both ground and rolled, averaged
8602% dry matter for the three trials. The moisture level
of the reconstituted treatments for all trials varied from
22.7% for. the reconstituted..,22% milo to 38% for the recon
stituted-38% milo in Trial IIL The moisture level of the
reconstituted milo in Trial I averaged 30.3%, while in
Trial II the average was 26.1%. The high moisture harvested
milo fed in Trial II averaged 3005% moisture. It is inter
esting to note that efficiency improved as moisture was
increased from 22.to 30% in Trial 111. Previous i!l vitro
work by Neuhaus (1968) indicated an increase in digestibility
as moisture increased to 38% .. The results of this feeding
trial showed no advantage for increasing the moisture level
from 30 to 38%i the available energy of the reconstituted-
38% milo was similar to that of reconstituted-30% milo.
The difference in results between the feeding trial and i!l
vitro trial could possibly be due to the lower gain of the
cattle on the reconstituted~38% milo compared to 30% milo
(Table XXX). The process of reconstituting milo to these
different moisture levels is of great practical significanceo
It is a relatively simple matter to raise the moisture level
56
of milo to 22%, but raising it to 30% requires more elabo
rate equipment and much longer exposure to water before or
during the _en.s.iling process. A further increase to 38%
moisture ac.tually .require.a .prolonged soaking of the grai,n
for approximately 10 hours .and would increase expense of
processing.
The result.s.of.Tria.l_II.indicated that particle size
is .an impo.r.tant .. f.actor .in .processing dry milo. The extra
. finely ground ... milo. improved. utilization_ appreciably over
finely g.round _.and .coarsely .rolled milo. Previous feeding
trial results .. comparing co.ar.sely ground to finely ground
milo showed.a .consistent advantage for the finer particles
if the grain had been .ground through a hammer mill .i( Baker
57
tt !:.!., 1955, Smith.tt .al., 1953 and Newsom, 1968). On the
other hand, rolled grain consisting of very large particles
is utilized. as effici.ently as grain which has been finely
ground through.a hammer.mill.(Smith and Parrish, 1953, Baker
tt il•o 1955 and Newsom, 1968). Apparently the rolling of
dry grain, as in the case of steamed grain, imparts some
characteristic to milo which.is beneficial to its utiliza
tion. However,.the kernels must be broken; results of
Trial II showed that very coarse rolling, with many (25%)
kernels. unbroken, .. re.s.ulted ih decreased efficiency compared
to finely g.r.o.und .grain.,
All of the high moisture processing methods decreased
the density of milo .as compared to the respective dry control
in each trial. In Trial I, the ground-r~constituted and
58
reconstituted-ground milo grains were 18,0 and 38,0% less
dense, respectively, than dry ground miloc There was consid
erably less fine material in the reconstituted-ground milo
as compared to the other treatmentso In Trial 11 the extra
finely ground and the high moisture harvested-ground milo
grains were very similar in particle size 0 but the fluffy
nature of the high moisture grain was very evident as shown
by the test weight per bushel (density) of the two processed
grains 9 4008 and 31o3 lbe per bushel 9 respectivelyv for
extra finely ground and high moisture harvested=ground milo.
With the exception of ground=reconstituted milo in Trial I 0
feed efficiency improved as density was decreasedo This
same trend has been noted in steam flaking of milo (Hale
~ al. 0 1965) and steam flaking of corn (Matsushima and
Montgomery 0 1967) where a very flat flake was utilized more
efficiently than a thick flake. In most cases 0 a decrease
in density involves an increase in surface area which appar
ently is conducive to greater utilization of the grain. In
the case of the 22 0 30 and 38% reconstituted milo in Trial
111 0 feed efficiency improved as moisture increased, with
little change in particle sizeo These results indicated
that density (pounds per bushel) is a more accurate indica
tor of utilization of high moisture processed grains than is
particle sizeo Work by Neuhaus (1968) indicated that as
particle size of dry milo decreased in. vitro digestibility
increased 9 but particle size of high moisture milo had no
affect on in vitro digestihilit.yo
59
Rolling of the high moisture processed grains markedly
improved feed efficiency as compared to grinding the same
high moisture processed grains in Trial llo This is consis
tent with results reported by Newsom (1968)0 The marked
increase in rate of gain of the high moisture processed
rolled milo was not observed in previous trials (Newsom 0
1968), and the increased rate of gain observed for highmois 00
ture processed~rolled grains in Trial II was not repeated in
Trial IIIo Also 9 the improvement in efficiency for the
reconstituted-rolled milo in Trial III was not as great as
in Trial IIo The roller mill used in Trial III was consid
erably lighter in weight and therefore could not exert as
much pressure on the milo kernelo A decrease in roller
pressure might result in less surface area of the grain
being exposed and hence a lower digestibility of the grain.
Neuhaus (1968) showed that as roller spacing decreased (and
consequently pressure increased) the in vitro digestibility
of high moisture grain improved. Roller pressure is also
extremely important in increasing the digestibility of
steam .. flaked milo. Hale tt il• (1965) reported a flat rolled
product was distinctly superior to poorly rolled grain.
The results of Trial I indicated that reconstituting
milo in the ground form at a moisture level of approximately
30% did not improve utilization compared to finely ground
dry milo. Apparently the germination process is initiated
in reconstituted whole grain 0 which causes a reduction of
starch to simpler 0 more readily available carbohydrates.
60
The enzymatic pathways would be destroyed by grinding before
reconstituting and this would prevent any beneficial effect
from the reconstituting processo Penic ~ al. (1968)
reported an improvement in feed efficiency of 11% for recon
stituted whole milo as compared to dry ground milo; ground
reconstituted milo did not improve utilization compared to
dry graino Since high moisture whole milo cannot be stored
in a trench silo without considerable spoilage 0 an airtight 9
upright structure is apparently needed for the successful
reconstituting of miloo
In Trial Il 9 it is interesting to note the similarity
in feeding value of the high moisture harvested and recon=
stituted milo. The ground "wet" grains and the rolled 0 wet"
grains improved feed efficiency approximately the same magni
tude compared to dry finely ground milo. It is possible
that the carbohydrates in high moisture harvested milo are
intercepted before conversion from a more soluble form to
starch 0 and would compare to the carbohydrates resulting
from the partial hydrolysis of starch when limited germina
tion occurs in reconstituted grain.
The int~ke and utilization of reconstituted milo are
at least partially dependent on moisture level and time of
storage 9 as shown by the results of Trial III. Feed consump
tion decreased and feed efficiency improved as the moisture
was increased from 22 to 38% (milo was stored 21 days).
Since rate of gain was not significantly affected by mois
ture level of milo 9 the heifers were apparently eating to a
61
constant energy level. Energy was apparently available from
both 30 and 38% reconstituted milo to a similar degree.
Preliminary in vitro work showed considerable improve
ment in dry matter disappearance for reconstituted milo
exposed to the atmosphere for one day. When this procedure
was incorporated into a feeding trial (Trial III)o the
improvement was not of the magnitude observed in the in.
vitro trialss In vitro digestibility determinations on
samples taken from the grain actually processed for the
feeding trial showed little benefit from reconstituti6n 9··,,
as was observed in the feeding trial. It is possible that
the laboratory technique of using a small sample of milo
allowed more complete germination than was possible when a
larger quantity was reconstituted for the feeding trial and
sprouting occurred only in the top 10 to 13 cm. of the grain
mass.
With the exception of ground-reconstituted milo in
Trial 1 9 all NEP values obtained for processed milo in
these trials ,were related to feed efficiency; as feed effi-
ciency improved, NEP values increased. The difference in
relationship of the NEP values and feed/kg. of gain in
Trial I was probably due to chance 0 as the values were very
similar. The mean NEP value for the finely ground milo
(Trials I and II) and dry rolled milo (Trial III) was 106.5
megcal./100 kg., which corresponds to a value of 108.0
megcal./100 kg. reported for Southwest milo by Lofgreen and
Garrett (1967). NEP values reported by Newsom (1968) for
62
finely ground, reconstituted-rolled and reconstituted-ground
milo were 124.3, 152.5 and 124.3 megcalo/100 kg. 0 respective
ly, as compared to 95.3, 127.7 and 112.8 megcal./100 kgo for
the same treatments in Trial II. The reason for the differ-
ence in NEP values is not apparent. Similar differences
were reported by Hall.!.! ll• (1968) 0 who pointed out that NE
determinations are subject to such variations.
The increased NEP of the high moisture processed grains
and the extra finely ground milo in Trial II, and of the
reconstituted-30 and -38% milo in Trial III, was probably
partly due to increased digestibility. An increase in milo
digestibility due to high moisture processing has been
observed by Buchanan-Smith.!.! !l• (1968) and McGinty and
Riggs (1967)0 Smith.!.! !lp (1949) reported an increase in
digestibility of dry matter, crude protein, ether extract
and nitrogen free extract when finely ground milo was com-
pared to coarsely ground miloo
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY
Three feeding trials were conducted to investigate the
factors influencing the utilization of high moisture proc
essed milo. Coarse rolling, fine grinding and extra fine
grinding of dry milo were also compared in one feeding trial.
Evaluation was on the basis of feedlot performance, net
energy .and carcass merit.
Reconstituted-ground milo (reconstituted in whole form,
stored 21 days, then ground) significantly (P<.05) increased
rate of gain compared to ground-reconstituted milo (ground,
then reconstituted and stored. 21 days), and feed/kg. of gain
was markedly reduced by reconstituted-ground milo compared
to dry finely ground and ground-reconstituted milo. Feed
intake was almo.st identical for the three treatments in this
trialo Net energy for production (NEP) was not significant=
ly affected by processing method. It is apparent from the
results of this trial that milo must be reconstituted in the
whole form to benefit from the reconstituting process.
Grinding dry milo through a 1.59 mm. screen (extra fine
grinding) improved feed efficiency 6.7% over grinding milo
through a 3.18 mm. screen (fine grinding); the floury tex
ture of the extra finely ground milo did not appreciably
63
64
reduce intake. Coarsely rolled miloo which contained
approximately 25% unbroken kernels9 reduced feed efficiency
6.7% and decreased rate of gain slightly compared to finely
ground milo. The NEP value of extra finely ground milo was
significantly (P<.05) higher th~n that of finely ground and
coarsely rolled milo, indicating that particle size is an
important factor affecting energy utilization • ... l
With the exception of the ground=reconstituted milo 0
all high moisture processing methods improved utilization
of milo compared to fine grinding and dry rolling. Recon=
stituted-22% moisture milo increased consumption compared to
dry rolling; however 9 all other high moisture processing
methods reduced feed intake as compared to the respective
dry controls. Although not significant (P>a05) 9 rolling of
the high moisture processed grains increased rate of gain
10.5% as compared to grinding. High moisture harvesting and
reconstituting produced similar improvements in feed effi=
ciency. All high moisture methods significantly (P<.05)
increased NEP over coarsely rolled miloo
Milo reconstituted to moisture levels of 30 and 38%
significantly (P<.05) improved efficiency over dry rolled
milo. Feed/kg. of gain was reduced as the moisture level,
of reconstituted milo was increased from 22 to 30% for milo
stored 21 days, The storage of reconstituted milo for one
day was not sufficient to improve utilization appreciably.
Differences in NEP were not significant (P>.05) for the milo
grain reconstituted at different moisture levels 9 but NEP
65
was increased 34.9 and 39,3%, respectively, for 30 and 38%
reconstituted milo compared to dry rolled milo. The improve
ments in NEP were consistent with improvements in feed
efficiency.
Feed efficiency expressed as feed/kg. gain of live
shrunk weight was almost identical to feed efficiency
expressed as feed/kg. of empty body weight gain, indicating
that variable fill was not a problem under the conditions
imposed in this. study.
Carcass merit 9 as measured by dressing percent 9 carcass
grade, ribeye area 9 fat thickness and cutability, was not
significantly (P>.05) affected by processing method in these
trials.
LITERATURE CITED
(1) Baker 0 Fo H., E. F. Smith, R. Fo Cox and D. Richardsono 1955, A comparison of rolled 0 coarsely ground and finely ground milo grain for fattening yearling heifers. Kan. Agro Exp. Sta. Circ, 320.
(2) Baker, F. S, 0 Jr. 1967, High moisture versus dry corn in steer finishing rations. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeo. Rpt. 67-6.
(3) Beeson, W. M. and T. W. Perry. 1958. The comparative feeding value of high moisture corn and low moisture corn with different feed add°itives for fattening beef cattle, J. Animal Sci. 17s368·.
(4) Beesop, w. M., T. w. Perry and R. E. Honnold, 1956. High moisture ground ear corn vs. regular ground ear corn with and without antibiotics for fattening steers. Ind, Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeo, Ao H. 169.
(5) Beeson, w. M, 9 T. W. Perry and R. Eo Honnold, 1957. "Dynafac" and torula yeast as additives to highand low-moisture ground ear corn for fattening heifers. Ind. Agr. Expo Sta. Mime.o. A. H. 204.
(6) Boren 9 F. W. 0 E. F. Smith 9 D. Richardson, R. F. Cox and Do Follis. 1962. The effects of added protein to dry rolled and steam rolled sorghum grain fattening ra'l:ions, Kan. Agr •. Exp. Sta. Bul. 447s8,
(7) Branaman, G. A. and B. G. Harmon. 1960, The feeding value of ensiled high moisture ear and shelled corn, and of artifically dried corn for fattening cattle and effects of environment. Mich. State Univ. Cattle Feeders 0 Day Rpt. A, H. 61.
(8) Brethour, J. R. and W.W. Duitsman. 1961. Value of ensiled high-moisture sorghum grain (ground and unground) in a fattening ration for yearling steers. Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 382a8.
(9) Brethour, J. Ro and W.W. Duitsman. 1962. Value of ensiled high-moisture grain (ground before and after ensiling) in a fattening ration for yearling steers. Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. ~48,
66
i \ '\
67
(10) Brethour, J. R, and W. w. Duitsman. 1963. Methods of processing sorghum grain for steer fattening rations·, High-moisture sorghum grain ensiled at two moisture levels compared with coarsely and finely ground dry grain, Kan. Agr. Expo Sta. Roundup Rpto 459s20,
(11) Brethour, J. Ro .and Wo W. Duitsmano 1964. Ensiled high-moisture sorghum grain for fattening yearling steers, Kan, Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 472826.
(12) Brethour, Jo Ro and W.W. Duitsman. 1964. Finely rolled sorghum grain with or without molasses in an all-concentrate, steer fattening ration. Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 482s31.
(13) Brethour 9 J. R. and W. Wo Duitsman. 1966. Finely rolled or coarsely rolled sorghum grain to fatten yearling steers. Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 492s40,
(14) Buchanan-Smith, J. G., Robert Totusek and Ao D. Tillman. 1968. Effect of methods of processing on digestibility and utilization of grain sorghum by cattle and sheep, J. Animal Scio 27s525o
(15) Burroughs 9 Wise 9 Walter Woods 9 C, c. Culbertson and John Greig, 1959. Enzyme {Agrozyme) additions to beef fattening rations containing low-moisture and high-moisture corn. Ia, Agr. Exp. Sta. A.. H. leaflet 779.
(16) Cox, R. F. and E. F. Smith. 1952. A comparison of rolledp coarsely ground and finely ground milo grain for fattening steer calves. Kan. A.gr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 283.
(17) Culbertson,C. c~; 11 Wise Burroughs, Edmond Cheng and W. E. Hammond. 1957. High-moisture vs. low-moisture corn for fattening cattle receiving supplements with and without stilbestrol 9 dynafac and 3-nitro, Ia. Agr. Exp. Sta. A.H. leaflet 222a7.
(18) Culbertson, c. Coo Wise Burroughs, Arthur Raun, Oran Little and W. E. Hammond. 1958, High-moisture sorghum grain for fattening medium quality cattle and progress report, high-moisture vs, low-moisture corn for fattening cattle, Ia, A.gr. Exp. Sta. A.H. leaflet 753.
(19) Garrett, W. N, 0 G. P. Lofgreen and J, L, Hull. 1966. Steam pressure processing of grain for fattening cattle. Univ. of Calif. Dept. of An'imal Hus. · Calif, Feeders' Day Rpt.s25.
()
(20) Garrett, Wo No, G, P. Lofgreen and J. L. Hull. 1967., Steam pressure processing of barley and milo. Univ. of Calif. Dept. of Animal Hus. Califo Feeders 9 Day Rpt.a27.
68
(21) Hale, W. H,, Bruce Taylor 9 W. Jo Saba and Kenneth Palmer. 1964. The effects of steam processing milo and barley and the use of various levels of fat with steam processed milo and barley in highconcentrate steer fattening ratlons. Ariz. Agr. Exp. Sta. 1965 Cattle Feeders 0 Day Rpt.al6.
(22) Hale, w. H., Bruce Taylor, Brent Theurero W. J. Saba, Howard Fredericks and E. L, Brown. 1965. The effect of steam'processing milo and barley for high concentrate steer fattening rations. Ariz. Agro Exp. Sta. 1965 Cattle Feeders 0 Day Rpt.s46.
(23) Hall, George A. B.,. Curtis w. Absher, Robert Totusek and Allen D. Tillman. 1968. Net energy of sorghum grain and corn for fattening cattle. J. Animal Sci. 27sl65.
(24) Hentges, J. F., Jr., J. W. Carpenter and A. z. Palmer. 1962. Comparing four corn rations for fattening beef. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Research Rpt. Vol, 7 -No. 3.
(25) Hodge, D. E., M. P. Plumlee and W. M. Beeson. 1959. Digestible energy determinations of high and regular moisture corn and cob meal, corn cobs and soy mill feed using identical twin beef calves. J. Animal Sci. 18s1527o (Abstr.).
(26) Hubberto Farris, Jr., Bruce Taylor, W. H. Hale, W. C. Carey, Jr. and E. B, Stanley. 1962. Barley vs. milo in Arizona feedlot rations. Ariz. Agr. Exp. Sta. 1962 Cattle Feeders 0 Day Rpt. s3l.
(27) Johnsono D. E., J-. K. Matsushima and K. L. Knox. 1967. Utilization of flaked vs. cracked corn by steers. J, Animal Sci. 26s876. (Abstr.).
(28) Larson, W. M,o L.B. Embry, R. M. Luther, L. J. Nygaard and D. H. Bushman. 1966. Dry and "reconstituted" high-moisture corn grain fed with and without roughage once and twice daily to finishing beef steers. s. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. A. s. Series 67-7.
(29) Larson, W. M., L. B, Embry Dry and high-moisture daily to beef steers. (Abstr.).
and L. J. Nygaard. 1966. corn fed once and twice J. Animal Sci. 2511245.
69
(30) Little, c. O., N. W. Bradley and B. M. Jones, Jra 1962. Ground, flaked and pelleted corn for fattening beef steers. Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta. Progress Rpt. 116220.
(31) Lofgreen 9 G. P. and W. N. Garrett. 1967. Net energy requirements and feed values for growing and finishing cattle. Calif. Cattle Feeders 9 Annual Meeting, Univ. of Califo
(32) Matsushima, J. K. 1966. Flaking of grain for fattening cattle. Proc. of 17th Mont. Nutr. Conf.
(33) Matsushima 9 Jo Ko, D. E. Johnson 9 M. We Heeney and B. Ao Weichenthal. 1965. Greater feed efficiency from flaked corn. Colo. Farm and Home Research.
(34) Matsushima, Jo K. and Ro Lo Montgomeryo 1967. The thick and thin of flaked corn. Colo. Farm and Home Research. Vol. 179 No. 2.
{35) Matsushima, J. K. and Norris J. Stenquist. 1968. Corn& reconstituted 9 fine ground, dry rolled, ensiled and flaked. Colo. Farm and Home Research. Vol. 18, No. 2.
(36) McCroskey 9 J. Eo 9 Lo So Pope and Kenneth Urbano 1960. Further studies on pelleting rations for steers. Okla. Agr. Expo Sta. Bul. MP-57s96.
(37) McGinty 9 D. D., P. Penic and E. Jo Bowers. Moist grain for finishing beef cattleo Sci. 27sll70.
1968. J. Animal
(38) McGinty, D. D. and J. K. Riggs. 1967. Moist sorghum grains for finishing cattle. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Dept, Tech. Rpt. No. 10s94.
(39) Mehen, Stephen, w. H. Hale 9 Brent Theurer and o. M. Little. 1966. Digestibility of dry-rolled, fine ground, steam-processed and pressure-cooked milo by steers. Ariz. Agr. Exp. Sta. 1966 Cattle Feeders 0 Day Rpt.s43.
(40) Morrison, Frank B. 1959. Feeds !!'.!£ Feeding (22nd ed.),, The Morrison Publishing Co., Clinton, Iowa.
(41) Murphey, c. E., D. K. Hallett, W. E. Tyler and J. c. Pierce, Jr. 1960. Estimating yields of retail cuts from beef carcasses. 62nd Meeting of the Amo Soca of Animal Prodo 9 Chicago.
70
(42) Neuhaus 0 Vincent Do 1968. Factors affecting the in vitro digestibility of moist sorghum grain. Okla. Agro Exp. Sta. M. S. Thesis.
(43) Neuhaus, Vincent D. 1968. Unpublished data. Okla. Agr. Expo Sta.
(44) Newland, Ho W. 9 Go Ao Branaman and Richard Wo Rice. 1960. Heated corn and pelleted hay for fattening cattle. Mich. State Univ. Cattle Feeders 8 Day Rpt o A. H. 58 o
(45) Newsom 0 James Ro 1968. The effect of milo processing method on feedlot performance, carcass merit and net energy. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mo So Thesiso
(46) Newsom·, James Ro, Robert Totusek 9 Robert Renbarger 9
E. c. Nelson 9 Larry Franks 0 Vincent Neuhaus and Willie Basler. 1968. Methods of processing milo for fattening cattle. Okla. Agro Exp. Sta. Bulo MP-80s47o .
(47) Parrett, No A. and J. Ko Riggs. 1966. Dry, reconstituted and early harvested grain sorghum for finishing cattle. Cons. Prog. Rpt. Noo 2423. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta.
(48) Parrott, Cal, Steve Mehen 9 W • .H. Hale, Morgan Little and Brent Theurer. 1967. Digestibility of dryrolled and steam-processed barley, Ariz. Agr. Exp. Sta. 1967 Cattle Feeders 0 Day Rpt.a56.
(49) Penic 0 Peter, P. To Marion, J. Ko Riggs and D. Do McGinty. 1968. Physical form as a factor in reconstituting sorghum grain for beef cattle. Tex.Agr. Expo Sta. Cons. Prog. Rpt. No" 2557-2567s26.
(50) Perryo T. W.o w. M. Beeson and D. D. Cope. 1960. The value of an implanted tranquilizer and of supplemental enzymes when fed with either high-moisture ensiled shelled corn or regular shelled corn to fattening beef steers. Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeo. AS-276.
(51) Perry 9 To W., C.H. Nickel 9 Donald Webb and Wo M. Beeson. 1961. The comparative value of pelleted rations containing 20%, 40% or 60% hay for fattening beef steers. Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeo. AS-298.
71
(52) Pope 9 L, S., R, F. Hendrickson, Lowell Walters p George Waller and Wo D. Campbell. 1958. Effect of rolling vs. pelleting milo 9 previous implantation9 and certain feed additives on the feedlot performance of steer and heifer calves., Okla. Agr. Expo Sta. Bul. MP<m5lsll0.
(53) Pope, L. S., Kenneth Urban 9 Fred Harper and George Waller. 1961. Fattening beef calves -- supplements to high-milo and all-barley rations 9 grinding vs. steam-rolling milo, implanting with different amounts of stilbestrolo Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bulo MP*64s82.
(54) Pope 9 L. S., George Waller 9 George Odell and Wa De Campbello 1962. Methods of processing milo for fattening steer calves. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. MP-67sll3o
(55) Pope, L. S. 9 L. E. Walters 9 George Waller and W. Do Campbell. 1959. Rolled vs. pelleted milo and certain feed additives for fattening steer calves. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bulo MP-55sl19.
(56) Pope 9 Lo So 9 Lowell Walters 9 George Waller 9 Jr. and W. Do Campbell. 1960. Effect of pelleting and steam rolling milo 9 with and without enzymes 9 for fattening steer calves. Okla. Agro Exp. Sta. Bulo MP-57sl34.
(57) Richardson 0 D. 9 E. Fo Smith 9 B. Ao Koch 9 F. W. Boren and W. s. Tsien. 1960. Rolled vs. finely ground pelleted sorghum grain in cattle rations. Kan. Agro Exp. Sta, Circ. 378.
(58) Richardson 0 D, 0 Ec F, Smith 9 B. A. Koch and R. F. Cox. 1958. A study of the value of pelleting sorghum grain. Kan. Agr, Exp. Sta. Circ. 358.
(59) Smith 0 Eo F. and Do B. Parrish. 1953. A comparison of rolled 0 coarsely ground and finely ground milo grain for fattening yearling steers. Kan. Agr. Expo Sta .. Circ. 297 o
(60) Smitho Eo F .. 0 D. B. Parrish and Ao G. Pickett. 19490 Effect of grinding on the nutritive value of grain sorghums for fattening steer calves. Kan. Agro Exp. Stao Circ. 250s37o
(61) Smitho E. Fop Do Richardson 0 B. Ao Koch and F. W. Boren. 1960. A comparison of dry rolled and steam rolled sorghum graino Kan.Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 378.
(62) Steel, .R. G, and J. H, Torrie. Procedures of Statisticso New Yorke
1960. Principles s.E£, McGraw-Hill Book Co.v
72
(63) Tannerp James Eo 9 Jack A. Richey 9 Richard L. Willham and Joe Vo Whiternano 19670 Differences in growth pattern and carcass development of Angus bulls 9
steers and heiferso Okla. Agr. Exp., Sta. M. P .. 79831.
(64) Taylor 9 Bruce, Farris Hubbert, Jr. 9 W. Ho Halev W. Cci Careyu Jr. and Eo Bo Stanley. 19610 Barley VSo
milo in Arizona feedlot rations. 1961 Cattle Feeders 0 Day Rpt.a29.
(65) Taylor 9 Bruce, Farris Hubbert, Jr. 9 C. Bo Roubicek 9
R. Eo Taylor 0 Eo B. Stanley and Eo H. Hussmann. 1960., Steam-rolled vso dry-rolled milo and barleyo Arizo Agr. Expo Sta. 1960 Cattle Feeders 0 Day Rpto824.
(66) Totusek 0 Robert. 1968, Effect of cereal processing on feed efficiency and rate of gain. Proc. 1968 Okla. Cattle Feeders 8 Seminar.
(67) Totusek, Robert 0 Larry Renbarger. 19670 fattening cattle. MP-79s 79n
Franks, Willie Basler and Robert Methods of processing milo for Oklao Agro Expo Sta. Bul.
(68) Totusek 9 Robert 0 Dwight Stephens and Lowell Walters. 19640 Improving the utilization of milo for fattening calves~ value of fine grinding and supplemental vitamin A. Okla, Agr. Exp, Sta. But. MP-74 s 63.
(69) Webb 0 R. Jo and G. Fo Cmarik. 1955, Comparison of feeding a ration as pellets and as a meal to yearling steerso Illo Agr. Expo Sta., DS-27,
VITA~
Dennis Ralph White
Candidate for the Degree of
Master of Science
Thesiss FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE, NET ENERGY AND CARCASS MERIT AS AFFECTED BY HIGH MOISTURE VS. DRY METHODS OF PROCESSING MILO
Major Fields Animal Science
Biographical s
Personal Datas Born in Chickasha 9 Oklahoma 9 July 19 0
1942 9 the son of Mr, and Mrs. Ralph H. White; married to Norm.a L. Ganna the father of one son, Gregory Lynn White.
Educations Graduated from Ninnekah High School 9
Ninnekah 0 Oklahoma 0 in May, 1960g received the Bachelor of Science degree from Oklahoma State University in May, 1964, with a major in Animal Scienceo
Professional Experiences Reared on a diversified farm in southwest Oklahoma. Worked in Provision Depart• ment9 Wilson and Company, Inc. 0 1964-68. Graduate Assistant at Oklahoma State University, 1968=69,
Professional Organizationss Phi Kappa Phi, Alpha Zeta and Block and Bridle Club.